On Sun, Jan 13, 2019 at 09:50:36PM +0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2019 13:02:28 +0100
> Johan Hovold <johan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Dec 09, 2018 at 08:51:46PM +0100, Andreas Kemnade wrote:
> > > The api forbids writing data there otherwise. Prepare for the
> > > serdev_open()/close() being a part of runtime pm.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > add locking
> > >
> > > drivers/gnss/sirf.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gnss/sirf.c b/drivers/gnss/sirf.c
> > > index 2c22836d3ffd..ba663de1db49 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gnss/sirf.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gnss/sirf.c
> > > @@ -35,6 +35,12 @@ struct sirf_data {
> > > struct gpio_desc *wakeup;
> > > int irq;
> > > bool active;
> > > + /*
> > > + * There might be races between returning data and closing the gnss
> > > + * device.
> > > + */
> >
> > Please drop this comment, which is too verbose. The mutex protects the
> > opened flag, and that could be indicated using a new line above the
> > mutex and below the flag, or using a short comment before the mutex.
> >
> > > + struct mutex gdev_mutex;
> >
> > Please rename "mutex". We should be able to reuse this for the serdev
> > open count as well, right?
>
> No. we cannot. The problem here is that we would take the same mutex
> in a serdev callback and around a serdev call. Then we have things like
> that:
>
> [ 36.700408] ======================================================
> [ 36.706970] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
Right, we need to be able to flush as part of close. Thanks for
investigating, though.
Johan
